One of my online students recommended that I read the work of his brother, Ashby Camp. A while ago I posted his thoughts on historical evidence for the Resurrection, and now he sends me two other pieces:

On The New Atheism, it is rather long and I have not read it all. However, the New Atheism is said to differ from the old atheism because it says religion is not only wrong, but bad.

We must realise that whether religion has good aspects is a very different topic from whether it is true. I think religion has been very useful in promoting the existence of large cohesive groups. I also think it is not true. I am tending towards the notion that we would now be better off without it, that society has matured to the point where it is no longer necessary. That has not yet been fully tested.

Having skipped through the whole thing (the new atheist one) I find it unconvincing. Two examples spring to mind. He concludes that ” It is more reasonable to believe that Christ was raised from the dead than to believe he was not, and the resurrection of Christ supports the existence of the God of Scripture.”

Sorry, but the justifications are way too weak for any such conclusion. All we have are few 2,000 year old testimonies. Not anywhere near strong enough evidence for such an extraordinary claim.

He also claims that when Joshua killed everybody in the cities he defeated it may just be exaggeration – shorthand for a comprehensive victory. If we accept that it leaves lots of bible stuff a bit short. Maybe the resurrection was just an analogy.